Case Name:	Jackson v. Raley's		11/29/2012
Summary:	When I attempted to discuss reasonable accommodations, such as modified or alternative jobs that [Jackson] might be able to perform with his medical restrictions, [Jackson] refused to continue the conversation. However, believing that Jackson was no longer employed by Raley's, Archie did not call Jackson during his bid time. Raley's also pointed out that Gabbert immediately sent Jackson a letter summarizing the phone call and encouraging Jackson to contact him to discuss possible accommodations, but Jackson neither responded to the letter nor contacted anyone at Raley's to discuss such accommodations. Gabbert sent [Jackson] a letter confirming their call and requesting [Jackson] contact him to discuss accommodations. Despite Gabbert's letter informing Jackson to contact him if he changed his mind and wanted to discuss qualifications or alternate positions at Raley's, Jackson refused to engage.
Note:	The 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled that a former supermarket worker could not hold his employer liable for its alleged failure to engage in a good faith interactive process to find accommodation for his disability when the worker himself failed to engage in the interactive process at all.
Citation:	C067248
WCC Citation:	WCC 39612012 CA

Case Name:	Jackson v. WCAB		10/27/2005
Summary:	on rehearing) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) CYNTHIA JACKSON et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION et al. , Respondents. II Procedure Cynthia Jackson, as the guardian ad litem for Barryn Davis, Jr. , filed an application for adjudication of claim asserting that Davis, Sr. 's heart attack arose out of and in the course of his employment. In those proceedings, Jackson invoked the presumption contained in Labor Code section 3212. 2, which provides in relevant part: "In the case of officers and employees in the Department of Corrections having custodial duties, . The WCAB concluded that the medical evidence that the cause of death was "the non-industrial viral infection that led to the development of the myocarditis" constituted sufficient evidence "to rebut the presumption of industrial causation. "Jackson filed a petition for a writ and we issued a writ of review.
Note:	Employer must do more to rebut the presumption of compensability than present evidence that nothing in the employee's job caused his heart attack.
Citation:	133 Cal. App. 4th 965; 35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 256
WCC Citation:	WCC 31282005 CA

Case Name:	James W. Cristler et al. v. Express Messenger Systems		01/23/2009
Summary:	Ct. No. GIC803519) Â		  BARRY NEWMANN,               Plaintiff,               v.   EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC. , et al. ,               Defendants.               James W. Cristler, John Purves, James G. Harrod, Sydney Moroff and Mark Lambert, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons (collectively Cristler), sued a parcel delivery company, Express Messenger Systems, Inc. , doing business as California Overnight (Express Messenger). The lawsuit contained a number of causes of actions, all based on a core contention that Express Messenger improperly classified its employees as independent contractors.             Drivers who elected to continue working with Express Messenger after the change entered into written independent contractor agreements with SCI to perform delivery services for Express Messenger.             In December 2004, Cristler filed a complaint against Express Messenger on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees/independent contractors of Express Messenger.
Note:	Drivers for a delivery service were independent contractors, even though the company had terminated its employees and contracted with them to perform the same duties.
Citation:	D050719
WCC Citation:	WCC 34822009 CA

Case Name:	Janet v. IAC		12/01/1965
Summary:	MORTON L. JANET, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, BROWN DRILLING CO. , et al. , Respondents. On November 27, 1960, petitioner suffered an industrial injury to his stomach, back, legs and chest when a derrick board fell upon him. On December 19, 1961, petitioner applied for medical care and further total temporary disability. Applicant thereafter was examined by an orthopedist of his own selection whose report of June 7, 1962, suggested a 'high volume type of myelogram. 'On June 24, 1963, applicant again petitioned for a hearing for temporary compensation, medical treatment and reimbursement for self-procured medical treatment.
Note:	TTD awarded where worker refused surgery that wasn't an aid to cure.
Citation:	238 Cal.App.2d 491, 30 CCC 411
WCC Citation:	WCC 24841965 CA

Case Name:	Janya v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group Part 1/2		01/07/2020
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR .             JAMES JANYA et al. ,Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .             SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP,Defendant and Respondent. .             B290754 .             (Los Angeles CountySuper. .             The Rager Law Firm, Jeffrey Rager, James Y. Yoon; Gusdorff Law and Janet Gusdorfffor Plaintiffs and Appellants. .             Davis Wright Tremaine, John P. LeCrone and Rochelle L. Wilcoxfor Defendant and Respondent.   .             Plaintiffs James Janya and Michael Salloom appeal from a summary judgment on their retaliation, wrongful termination, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims related to the termination of their employment with defendant Southern California Permanente Medical Group (SCPMG). . Bailey’s Meetings With Janya and Salloom .           On September 15, 2015, Bailey met (separately) with Janya and Salloom to discuss the results of his investigation.
Note:	A California appellate court upheld the dismissal of two workers’ claims for retaliation, wrongful termination, defamation and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Citation:	No. B290754
WCC Citation:	No. B290754

Case Name:	Janya v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group Part 2/2		01/07/2020
Summary:	Thus, Janya, and not Alepian, was the person responsible for the serious violation of policy. .           As a preliminary matter, we fail to see how this evidence establishes the existence of the glitch Janya describes. Janya stated that the glitch happened sometimes when he logged out without first hitting the “file” button. .           Finally, SCPMG presented evidence that Baileyinvestigated the purported glitch by contacting an expert from HealthConnect. .         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS .         WILLHITE, Acting P. J.
Note:	A California appellate court upheld the dismissal of two workers’ claims for retaliation, wrongful termination, defamation and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Citation:	No. B290754
WCC Citation:	No. B290754

Case Name:	Janzen v. WCAB		12/30/1997
Summary:	STEPHANIE JANZEN et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CLAYTON CURTIS et al. , Respondents. [61 Cal. App. 4th 112] OPINION PUGLIA, P. J. - Petitioner, Stephanie Janzen, seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) dismissing her application for death benefits. Petitioner's father, Stanley Janzen (the deceased), a California resident, was killed in an airplane crash while working in Wyoming as a pilot for a Wyoming employer. 1 Curtis made a 'special appearance' in the workers' compensation proceeding, objecting to subject matter [61 Cal. App. 4th 113] jurisdiction. The State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) was later added as a defendant and Marvin Janzen was dropped.
Note:	Employment contract was entered into in CA; thus Sec. 5305 confers subject matter jurisdiction over dispute
Citation:	61 Cal.App.4th 109, 63 CCC 1
WCC Citation:	WCC 24811997 CA

Case Name:	Jeewarat v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.		09/03/2009
Summary:	FACTS Marc Brandon worked for Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (Warner) as Vice-President of Anti-Piracy Internet Operations. The accident occurred at approximately 4:35 p. m. One or both cars struck and injured pedestrians Chuenchomporn Jeewarat, Tipphawan Tantisriyanurak and Kanhathai Vutthicharoen. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On February 2, 2007, Jeewarat and Tantisriyanurak filed a personal injury action against Brandon and Southard. On July 5, 2007, Jeewarat and Tantisriyanurak filed an amendment to the complaint substituting Warner as a Doe defendant. Warner asserted that even if the special errand doctrine applied, any special errand ended when Brandon drove his regular commute route home.
Note:	An employee's attendance at an out-of-town business conference may be considered a special errand under the special errand doctrine and the errand is not concluded simply because the employee drives his regular commute route, but rather, the errand is concluded when the employee returns home or deviates from the errand for personal reasons.
Citation:	B212323
WCC Citation:	WCC 35592009 CA

Case Name:	Jefferson v. CA Dept. of Youth Authority		07/01/2002
Summary:	MARY J. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AUTHORITY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The California Department of Youth Authority (the Youth Authority) employed Mary Jefferson from September 1992 to February 1994 to work part-time as a teacher's assistant in the high school classroom of Larry Berg. Eventually, the Youth Authority reassigned Jefferson to a different classroom, but at about the same time, her doctor recommended she stop working due to work-related stress. On July 9, 1996, Jefferson settled her workers' compensation claim against the Youth Authority using the mandatory form adopted by the workers' compensation appeals board (WCAB) for compromise and release of claims. Jefferson filed this civil action on August 23, 1996, against the Youth Authority and Larry Berg.
Note:	C&R that releases all claims sufficient to defeat FEHA claim arising from same facts.
Citation:	28 Cal.4th 299; 67 CCC 727
WCC Citation:	WCC 28662002 CA

Case Name:	Jefferson v. CA Youth Authority		03/26/2001
Summary:	MARY J. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AUTHORITY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Introduction Plaintiff Mary J. Jefferson appeals judgment entered in favor of defendants California Department of Youth Authority (CYA) and Larry Berg (defendants) following the trial court's ruling granting defendants' motion for summary judgment. Jefferson v. California Dept. of Youth Authority (2001) , Cal. App. 4th [No. E026915. MARY J. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AUTHORITY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. MARY J. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AUTHORITY et al. , Defendants and Respondents.
Note:	A general release in a C&R is effective against ALL other claims.
Citation:	87 Cal.App.4th 1357, 66 CCC 343
WCC Citation:	WCC 4232001 CA

Case Name:	Jeffrey Tverberg v. Fillner Construction (1st DCA opinion)		12/05/2008
Summary:	Fillner contracted with Lane Supply, which in turn hired Perry Construction, Inc. (Perry), to install a canopy at the project site. On May 2, 2006, Jeffrey Tverberg fell into a hole at the project site, resulting in both physical and emotional injuries. *fn1 Jeffrey Tverberg alleged causes of action for negligence and premises liability; Catherine Tverberg pled a cause of action for loss of consortium. Finding that Fillner had established a complete defense to the Tverbergs' action, the trial court entered judgment for Fillner in November 2007. Furthermore, those assertions are supported by a declaration from a Fillner employee made under penalty of perjury, by a declaration from Jeffrey Tverberg made under penalty of perjury and by the deposition testimony of Jeffrey Tverberg himself.
Note:	An injured independent contractor is not barred from filing a personal injury action against a general contractor, despite a contrary ruling by another appellate court.
Citation:	A120050
WCC Citation:	WCC 34662008 CA

Case Name:	Jeffrey v. Temple City Unified School District		02/11/2013
Summary:	JEFFREY v. TEMPLE CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT RANDOLPH JEFFREY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TEMPLE CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of a public school district, in a lawsuit alleging that the district violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). FACTS Plaintiff's Employment and Injuries Randolph Jeffrey was hired as a part-time custodian in December 2005 by the Temple City Unified School District (TCUSD) to perform light maintenance and repairs, and to direct traffic. TCUSD contacted Jeffrey regularly regarding his medical status until he told the district to "stop harassing me while I'm convalescing. "Jeffrey's Ability to Do His Job The school district contends that Jeffrey cannot prevail on his discrimination claim because he was not "qualified to do his job. "
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that an injured school custodian's claims of disability discrimination failed as a matter of law.
Citation:	B241688
WCC Citation:	WCC 39852013 CA

Case Name:	Jenkins v. WCAB		05/29/1975
Summary:	ELDA E. JENKINS, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Taylor, P. J. , with Kane and Rouse, JJ. , concurring. )COUNSEL Maurice S. Marcus and Richard A. Hellesto for Petitioner. T. Groezinger, James J. Vonk, George S. Bjornsen and Robert A. The policy expressed in Labor Code section 3202 applies equally to 'the courts' and to the board (Gross v. Workmen's Comp. The policy seems frequently overlooked by the board (Gross, supra, p. 403).
Note:	Commutation of death benefit appropriate where beneficiary terminally ill.
Citation:	48 Cal.App.3d 570, 40 CCC 329
WCC Citation:	WCC 24241975 CA

Case Name:	Jensen vs. Amgen		02/03/2003
Summary:	DARCY M. JENSEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AMGEN, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff and appellant Darcy M. Jensen is employed by defendant and respondent Amgen, Inc. as a module team coordinator. Amgen transferred Jensen out of buildings 5 and 15 shortly after the safety report was filed. Jensen voluntarily dismissed her claim for unfair business practices and appealed the judgment subsequently entered in favor of Amgen. Nor did Jensen present evidence of the second condition necessary for the fraudulent concealment exception, namely, that Amgen concealed the connection between her symptoms and her employment.
Note:	Work comp is exclusive remedy for injuries from mold in the workplace absent fraudulent concealment.
Citation:	105 Cal.App.4th 1322
WCC Citation:	WCC 29122003 CA

Case Name:	Jensen vs. WCAB		07/19/1985
Summary:	OTTO JENSEN, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and GILLIG CORPORATION, Respondents. Carl J. Weber and Hanna, Brophy, MacLean, McAleer & Jensen for Respondents. [170 Cal. App. 3d 246] OPINION KLINE, P. J. Petitioner Otto Jensen seeks review of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) opinion and order denying reconsideration. Petitioner Jensen was employed as a sheet metal welder by respondent Gillig Corporation and was injured in a fall in the course of his employment. On December 13, petitioner filed a petition for imposition of a 10 percent penalty for respondent's failure to pay temporary disability compensation.
Note:	No 'grace period' for delay in payment provided by the statutory right to reconsideration or appellate review.
Citation:	170 Cal.App.3d 244
WCC Citation:	WCC 30221985 CA

Case Name:	Jersey v. John Muir Medical Center		04/16/2002
Summary:	ESTER B. JERSEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JOHN MUIR MEDICAL CENTER et al. , Defendants and Respondents. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff was employed by the defendant medical center in various nursing assistant and technician positions for approximately seven years. Discharging an employee for exercising a right is tortious only if the criteria enumerated in Gantt and subsequent decisions are met. The public policy that is violated must be one that is delineated by constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provisions. Suing a patient who cannot be held accountable for his actions because of a medical or psychological condition fits neither our mission nor its values.
Note:	Okay to fire hospital worker who sued patient that assaulted her at work.
Citation:	97 Cal.App.4th 814
WCC Citation:	WCC 28832002 CA

Case Name:	Jimenez v. San Joaquin Valley Labor		01/24/2002
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA MARIA YOLANDA JIMENEZ, Applicant, vs. SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY LABOR; and SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. In the former case the prediction of earnings need only be made for the duration of the temporary disability. Specifically, there is no significant evidence applicant likely would have worked during the off-season, had she not been injured. Second, the finding of two different temporary disability indemnity rates for a seasonal employee is fully consistent with the governing law. Vocational rehabilitation is one of the most important benefits under the Labor Code (Martinez v. Workers' Comp.
Note:	On-season & off-season TD rates; 2 tiered VR rates.
Citation:	67 CCC 74 [En Banc]
WCC Citation:	WCC 28352002 CA

Case Name:	JKH Enterprises Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations		09/11/2006
Summary:	JKH filed the petition for writ in an effort to overturn the administrative stop work order issued and upheld by the Department of Industrial Relations, respondent here. The drivers turn in their delivery logs and JKH keeps track of those in order to bill its customers. Cheng asked the dispatcher for a list of the names of drivers then working for JKH, which the dispatcher provided. JKH contested the "Stop Order-Penalty Assessment" and requested a hearing before the Department. [JKH] obtains the clients who are in need of delivery services and provides the workers who conduct the service on behalf of [JKH].
Note:	All but one of the employer's drivers were functioning as its employees rather than as true independent contractors.
Citation:	142 Cal. App. 4th 1046
WCC Citation:	WCC 31802006 CA

Case Name:	John Futrell et al. v. Payday California, Inc., et al.		12/16/2010
Summary:	Between July and December 2008, Payday and Futrell filed arguments, evidence and evidentiary objections on the issue of whether Payday had been Futrell's employer. Futrell submitted his own declaration attesting he "understood" he was a Payday employee because of the payroll documents that Payday processed, and because representatives of Payday made statements to that effect. The pay stubs provided with Futrell's paychecks identified Futrell as the "employee" and identified Payday as the "employer of record. "Payday did not and could not hire or fire Futrell, nor did Payday have any control over Futrell's work activities. Our references to "Payday" include Payday California, Inc. , Screaming Eagle, Inc. , Payday LA, Inc. , Payday Management, Inc. , and PDSI, Inc. .
Note:	A class action suit against a payroll company for unpaid overtime and other wages failed because the payroll company was not his employer, the 2nd District Court of Appeal concluded in a published opinion.
Citation:	B215110
WCC Citation:	WCC 36962010 CA

Case Name:	Johns-Manville vs. Sup. Court (Rudkin)		07/03/1980
Summary:	It requested the trial court to take judicial notice of an application filed by plaintiff seeking workers' compensation benefits for disability caused by "[e]xposure to asbestos. "The court declared that the Legislature never intended that an employer's fraud was a risk of the employment. However, the court concluded that having undertaken treatment in a doctor-patient relationship, the employer should be liable in tort for acts of malpractice. [27 Cal. 3d 488] I would issue the writ and order respondent court to grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court reasoned that the Legislature did not intend to deny an employee all redress for that tort.
Note:	Employer civil liability if conceals knowledge of potential injury and connection with employment.
Citation:	27 Cal.3d 465
WCC Citation:	WCC 28601980 CA

Case Name:	Johnson v. John Deere Landscapes, Inc.		03/28/2008
Summary:	Ct. No. C05-02210) A temporary employment agency assigned appellant Kenneth Johnson to work for respondent John Deere Landscapes, Inc. (John Deere). He further contends John Deere is bound by the initial determination of its workers' compensation carrier that John Deere was not Johnson's employer. Labor Connection did not direct the manner in which Johnson performed his daily assignments for John Deere, and Johnson did not undertake work on his own initiative. John Deere argued that the undisputed facts established as a matter of law that it was Johnson's special employer, rendering John Deere immune from tort liability for Johnson's injuries. Johnson contends that the "admission" by John Deere's workers' compensation carrier that John Deere was not Johnson's employer vitiates the affirmative defense based on workers' compensation exclusivity.
Note:	[Unpublished] Although the special employment factors do not unanimously favor a finding of special employment, there is no requirement of unanimity and there was no error in finding that John Deere Landscapes, Inc. was Claimant's 'special employer' and thus the relationship falls under the exclusive remedy provision.
Citation:	A116643
WCC Citation:	WCC 33342008 CA

Case Name:	Johnson v. Pacific International Bearing, Inc.		12/27/2012
Summary:	JOHNSON v. PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL BEARING, INC. RICK JOHNSON, JR. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL BEARING, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Johnson did not come close to making his monthly sales goals at any time during his employment by Pacific. He was concerned that many of the accounts Johnson was targeting were too small or needed products Pacific was not selling, so he began to mentor Johnson and redirect him toward more productive efforts. On April 6, Sweeney and Johnson exchanged e-mails over a scheduled performance review for Johnson and other employees. Johnson's Termination On April 10, at 8:36 a. m. , Sweeney sent Davis an e-mail, copied to Johnson, instructing her to go on certain sales calls with Johnson.
Note:	Substantial evidence supported a jury's determination that an employer had not fired a poorly performing salesman with a history of lying to his boss because of a known or perceived physical disability.
Citation:	A129774
WCC Citation:	WCC 39662012 CA

Case Name:	Johnson v. WCAB (City of LA)		07/13/1989
Summary:	James Johnson, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California and City of Los Angeles, Respondents. Dr. Hyman reported applicant has reflux esophagitis and the condition was neither caused nor aggravated by the employment but rather was entirely congenital. Dr. Markovitz noted applicant was taking medication for his arm and some medications, including aspirin, upset applicant's stomach. Dr. Markovitz recommended applicant receive medication and occasional examinations by a physician for the gastrointestinal condition. In the present case, however, the WCJ's letter clarifying his decision concerned the precise issue as to which applicant sought reconsideration.
Note:	Time limit for filing begins when WCJ issues a clarification of issues based in Petition for Reconsideration.
Citation:	54 CCC 256
WCC Citation:	WCC 27331989 CA

Case Name:	Johnson v. WCAB (Lentz)		07/30/1970
Summary:	JEAN JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, LENTZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al. , Respondents. Mr. Johnson died on January 2, 1969; his widow filed her claim for death benefits on January 27. On February 4 the referee, without hearing or responsive pleading from the employer or insurance carrier, dismissed petitioner's application on the basis of the release executed by Mr. Johnson. We conclude that Labor Code section 5000 empowers an employee to compromise and release claims of his dependents. [7] Petitioner alleges that Mr. Johnson, in executing the compromise and release, did not know that he was releasing her claim to death benefits and did not intend that result.
Note:	Release of dependent's benefits valid;
Citation:	2 Cal.3d 964, 35 CCC 362
WCC Citation:	WCC 25551970 CA

Case Name:	Johnson v. WCAB (TWA)		11/19/1984
Summary:	In July of 1977, Johnson filed applications with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB or board) for adjudication of his claims for permanent disability compensation benefits arising from the two injuries. Johnson filed a petition for writ of review and requested the Court of Appeal to order Hartford to reimburse him for the printing costs. To assess the accuracy of the Rodriguez court's statement, it is helpful to survey the history of WCAB practices in this area. However, in 1971, the WCAB adopted a new policy under which it no longer answered such petitions unless they challenged WCAB procedures or policies. Accordingly, this cause is remanded to the WCAB with directions to award Johnson reasonable appellate costs.
Note:	Printing costs awarded to worker in answering petition for writ of review.
Citation:	37 Cal.3d 235, 49 CCC 716
WCC Citation:	WCC 26241984 CA

Case Name:	Johnston v. Kelly		01/03/2012
Summary:	JOHNSTON v. KELLY GEORGE PATRICK JOHNSTON et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. SHARON KELLY et al. , Defendants and Appellants. Johnston and Dairy filed their complaint in this action, alleging two causes of action for malicious prosecution and unfair business practices against Kelly and her law firm. Johnston contacted the union because another employee would have to be laid off in order to reinstate Toro, and Johnston wanted the union's input in determining which employee would be terminated. Toro testified at trial that he talked to Johnston when Johnston returned from vacation and Johnston said he had received a letter from EDD indicating Toro had quit; Johnston told Toro to come back and talk to him after he resolved the problem with EDD. At another point, Toro testified he went to see Johnston and ask for work; Johnston told him there was no work for him then.
Note:	An employer defeated a plaintiff's motion to strike a malicious prosecution suit that emanated from a failed Labor Code 132a claim.
Citation:	F060909
WCC Citation:	WCC 38422012 CA

Case Name:	Jones v. 414 Equities LLC		10/28/2008
Summary:	Jones v 414 Equities LLC NY Slip Op 08197 Decided on October 28, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department McGuire, J. /05 [*1]Clarence Jones, Plaintiff-Appellant, v Equities LLC, et al. , Defendants-Respondents. Plaintiff worked as a demolition laborer on a renovation project at a five-story apartment building owned by defendant 414 Equities LLC. Plaintiff did not "hear anything or see anything" before the floor collapsed except for the loud cracking noise. The owner answered the complaint in April 2005, and commenced a third-party action against plaintiff's employer in September 2005.
Note:	In light of the brevity of the delay, the absence of prejudice to plaintiff and the public policy favoring the resolution of disputes on their merits, Supreme Court properly granted the general contractor's cross motion to serve a late answer.
Citation:	100477/05
WCC Citation:	WCC 34442008 CA

Case Name:	Jones v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation		07/03/2007
Summary:	COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA KIM C. JONES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Jones was displeased and went to retake it; however, McMinn blocked her and refused to move out of her way. That day Jones reported pain in her neck and right wrist and shoulder, for which she received medical care at Donovan. In January and September, 2004, Jones filed complaints with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) against Donovan and several employees. Moreover, Jones did not present any evidence to refute Respondents' claims their complained-of employment actions were made for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons.
Note:	For conduct committed within the scope of employment, employees, like their employers, should not be held subject to suit. There are, however, statutory exceptions to coemployee immunity. A civil suit is permissible when an employee proximately causes another employee's injury or death by a 'willful and unprovoked physical act of aggression.'
Citation:	152 Cal. App. 4th 1367
WCC Citation:	WCC 32332007 CA

Case Name:	Jones v. Newton		06/02/2010
Summary:	MARY JONES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PETER NEWTON, Defendant and Respondent. Mary Jones, in pro. Plaintiff Mary Jones appeals from a trial court order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend her third amended complaint against defendant Peter Newton, M. D. She was referred to Newton "for further treatment" by her employer's third party worker's compensation administrator. But, as best as can be determined from plaintiff's rambling and inflammatory allegations, defendant failed to treat her properly.
Note:	Given the trial court's generosity in granting plaintiff several opportunities to file a proper pleading, and plaintiff's failure to demonstrate that the defects in her third amended complaint could be cured, we readily conclude that the trial court properly sustained defendant's demurrer without leave to amend.
Citation:	B217472
WCC Citation:	WCC 36332010 CA

Case Name:	Jones v. Opfer		11/23/2010
Summary:	SAM JONES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RALPH OPFER et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiff Sam Jones appeals from a judgment of dismissal for failure to bring to trial within five years (Code Civ. Proc. , §§ 583. 310, 583. 360) his complaint for personal injuries against defendants Ralph Opfer, individually and doing business as Ralph Opfer Flooring. Plaintiff asserts he is appealing from the dismissal with respect to all named defendants: R&R Flooring, Ralph Opfer and Randy Opfer. However, the notice of appeal states only an appeal from the judgment "in favor of Defendants Ralph Opfer, Ralph Opfer dba Ralph Opfer Flooring. "
Note:	The 3rd District Court of Appeal rejected an injured worker's attempt to blame the Sacramento County Superior Court for failing to bring a personal injury suit against an employer to trial within five years.
Citation:	C062312
WCC Citation:	WCC 36862010 CA

Case Name:	Jones v. Regents		04/22/2010
Summary:	Filed 4/22/10 Jones v. Regents CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8. 1115(b). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT MARY JONES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. Mary Jones, in pro. * * * * * * * Plaintiff, Mary Jones, appeals from the judgment on jury verdict in favor of defendant, the Regents of the University of California, in an action for employment discrimination and retaliation. This division rejected this contention on plaintiffs prior appeal, Jones v. Regents of University of California (2008) 164 Cal. App. 4th 1072, 1077.
Note:	A trial court correctly struck an operating nurse's claims from her complaint because they were compensable under the workers' compensation system, and not the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Citation:	B215244
WCC Citation:	WCC 36152010 CA

Case Name:	Jones v. Sedgwick Claims Management		08/06/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE MARY JONES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. et al. , Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff and appellant Mary Jones (Jones or plaintiff) filed a complaint alleging ten separate causes of action against defendant and respondent Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. (Sedgwick) and its predecessor in interest, Octagon Risk Services, Inc. (Octagon) (collectively defendant), third party administrators of workers' compensation benefits for the Regents of the University of California (Regents). Jones alleged she was injured during her nursing duties for the employer the University of California at Los Angeles. Jones alleges that the actions by Octagon and Sedgwick caused her physical, mental and financial injury. ; intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; and violation of her right to privacy by demanding certain records and in connection with investigating her claims.
Note:	[Unpublished] The California Workers' Compensation system preempts a private cause of action by an injured worker against the independent claims administrator of her self-insured employer for the delay or refusal to pay compensation benefits.
Citation:	B212160
WCC Citation:	WCC 35512009 CA

Case Name:	Jones v. Target Stores		10/26/1998
Summary:	Louis Jones, Applicant v. Target Stores, Constitution State Services, Defendants W. C. A. B. No. PAS 0040032 WCJ George C. Rothwell (PAS); WCAB Panel: Commissioners Gannon, Moore, Heath CCC 1385 October 26, 1998 DISPOSITION: Petition for Reconsideration granted. The facts disclose that applicant Louis Jones, a stocker born March 15, 1998, sustained an admitted industrial injury to his low back, left foot and left leg on December 16, 1995. Applicant subsequently selected Dr. Lucero of the Integrative Industrial and Family Practice Medical Clinic (II) as his free-choice primary treating physician. Dr. Lucero ordered PT for applicant, and referred him to the therapists employed by II, his own employer. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant employer's Petition for Reconsideration filed August 26, 1998 is GRANTED.
Note:	No financial interest found if dr.'s pay not dependent on referrals; Lien not reimbursable if no pre-authorization.
Citation:	63 CCC 1385 (Bd. Panel Decision)
WCC Citation:	WCC 3791998 CA

Case Name:	Jones v. Ukiah Timber Products		09/15/1997
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA DAVID JONES, Applicant, VS. UKIAH TIMBER PRODUCTS; GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. Case No. SRO 76675 OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC)Applicant, David Jones, suffered an injury to his left knee on September 21, 1993, while working as a truck driver for Ukiah Timber Products, then insured by Golden Eagle Insurance Company. Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration asserting that he should have been awarded a penalty equal to 10 percent of all medical benefits. On February 6, 1997, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration in order to allow sufficient opportunity to study the factual and legal issues. In Gallamore, supra, the Court's disposition included remanding the case for a determination as to whether travel expenses had been unreasonably delayed.
Note:	Penalty for unreasonable delay in reimbursing medical transportation expense applied to full amount of medical treatment expenses.
Citation:	62 CCC 1257
WCC Citation:	WCC 29021997 CA

Case Name:	Jones v. WCAB		09/20/1971
Summary:	HANNAH M. JONES, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, OIL, CHEMICAL AND ATOMIC WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Devine, P. J. , with Rattigan and Christian, JJ. , concurring. )She is the widow of Richard E. Jones, who received fatal injuries while he was acting as picket captain during a strike of respondent Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union Local 1-5 against Phillips Petroleum Company. The captains supervise the picket lines to see that those assigned to duty are present and that they are properly relieved. 'After a strike has continued for 21 days, striking pickets are eligible for interest free loans of up to $40. 00 a week. Respondents' emphasis on the fact that Jones was not on the payroll is not impressive, because of the authorities last cited.
Note:	Deceased picket was doing what union required at time of death.
Citation:	20 Cal.App.3d 124, 36 CCC 563
WCC Citation:	WCC 25871971 CA

Case Name:	Jones v. Winter		03/09/2011
Summary:	JONES v. WINTER MARY JONES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SUSAN WINTER et al. , Defendants and Respondents. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS ASHMANN-GERST, J. Mary Jones (Jones) sued respondents Susan Winter (Winter) and Howard Industries, Inc. (Howard) and sought millions of dollars in damages for personal injury arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Jones sued Winter and her employer, Howard, for negligence and claimed that the motor vehicle accident exacerbated injuries from her trip and fall and caused new injuries. When Jones called her expert, Dr. Greenfield, and referred to the two MRIs, counsel for Winter and Howard objected. But Winter and Howard conceded negligence, and Jones does not argue that there was insufficient evidence of causation or damages.
Note:	The 2nd District Court of Appeal affirmed a decision awarding a self-represented worker $7,595 in a personal injury suit stemming from an auto accident.
Citation:	B218717
WCC Citation:	WCC 37242011 CA

Case Name:	Jones, Brown, Clifford & McDevitt v. WCAB		10/28/1985
Summary:	Jones, Brown, Clifford & McDevitt, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California; Central California Conference of Seventh Day Adventists; National Union Fire Insurance Company; and Adam Hicks, Respondents. COUNSEL: For petitioner--Jones, Brown, Clifford & McDevitt, by Francis V. Clifford For respondent Appeals Board--Richard W. Younkin, William B. Donohoe & Alvin W. Barrett, by David Hettick OPINION BY: Newsom, J. OPINION: Petitioner Jones, Brown, Clifford & McDevitt, a law partnership, negotiated a structured settlement valued at $ 711,846. 29 on behalf of its client, an applicant for workers' compensation benefits. Petitioner contends that the Board's action is unreasonable, unsupported by substantial evidence, and in disregard of its own administrative guidelines. Petitioner asserts that in so doing, the WCJ and the Board failed to follow its own guidelines in two ways.
Note:	Board must specifically state criteria relied upon in Reg. 10779 in awarding/altering atty. fee.
Citation:	50 CCC 618
WCC Citation:	WCC 27151985 CA

Case Name:	Jorge Pacheco v. Greenfield Restaurant and CIGA		12/18/2006
Summary:	The duty to prove that an injury with industrial causation occurred was the applicant's rather than the defendant's, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board explained in n granting reconsideration of an award to a man who panel decision issued this week. The board in Jorge Pacheco v. Greenfield Restaurant and CIGA, LAO0779068, 12/118/06, reversed the trial court .
Note:	WCAB Panel says proof burden was misdirected.
Citation:	LAO0779068
WCC Citation:	WCC 32012006 CA

Case Name:	Josephs v. Pacific Bell		04/10/2006
Summary:	OPINION In this appeal we must resolve issues arising from the employment discrimination action brought against Pacific Bell Telephone Company (PacBell) by a former service technician, Joshua Liam Josephs. Josephs' immediate supervisor at PacBell, Steve Maches, testified at trial that during the suspension he had recommended Josephs be restored to his position because Josephs was performing well and would probably be an asset to Pac-Bell. Did Pacific Bell regard plaintiff as having a mental disorder at the time of his termination or non-reinstatement?Did Pacific Bell regard plaintiff as having a long-term mental disorder which substantially limited his ability to work in a broad range of jobs?Did Pacific Bell refuse to agree to reinstate plaintiff in the grievance settlement process because of his regarded as disability?
Note:	Evidence supports the judgment that the employer perceived the employee as disabled.
Citation:	443 F.3d 1050
WCC Citation:	WCC 31532006 CA

Case Name:	Judson Steel Corp. v. WCAB		11/21/1978
Summary:	JUDSON STEEL CORPORATION, a corporation, Petitioner v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and RALPH MAESE, Respondents. In 1973 petitioner Judson Steel Corporation employed applicant Ralph A. Maese as a crane operator. Despite his knowledge that Maese 'was off work because of an accident which occurred at Judson Steel,' Cortez laid off Maese because Maese 'lost seniority automatically according to the contract. 'On November 4, 1976, the workers' compensation judge found that Judson has made no attempt to extend Maese's 12-month grace period. Moreover, Judson '[was] not in any way compelled to terminate [Maese's] seniority after his period of temporary disability. '
Note:	Increased award due for any discriminatory act against injured worker.
Citation:	43 CCC 1205 (Supr. Ct.)
WCC Citation:	WCC 3711978 CA

Case Name:	Kaiser Cement Corp., etc. v. WCAB		05/06/1986
Summary:	When applicant first began his employment with Kaiser Cement in 1966, he worked four to five months as a laborer. The last four years applicant was employed by Kaiser Cement he worked as a heavy equipment operator. Dr. Billings described the occupational noise exposure at Kaiser Cement as 'Mill noise about 20% of the time while employed as a laborer by Kaiser Cement from 1966 to 1968 and about 50% of the time while employed as an electrician/oiler by Kaiser Cement from 1973 to 1979. The medical report of Dr. Riordan noted in applicant's medical history that applicant was exposed to noise while performing his duties for Kaiser Cement. His exposure to noise while employed by Kaiser Cement is the major causative factor of the noise-induced portion of this bilateral sensori-neural hearing loss.
Note:	Issues not raised in Petition for Recon. are waived under Code S. 5904.
Citation:	51 CCC 232
WCC Citation:	WCC 27251986 CA

Case Name:	Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. v. Superior Ct of LA County		02/15/2012
Summary:	KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC. , et al. , Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent. INTRODUCTION Anna Rahm and her parents, Lynnette and James Rahm, filed a complaint against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and two Kaiser health care providers. Plaintiffs' Complaint On July 15, 2010, Anna and her parents filed a complaint against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan (Kaiser Health Plan or Health Plan), which administered Anna's health care plan. The complaint also named Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (Kaiser Hospitals) and Southern California Permanente Medical Group (SCPMG), which contract with Kaiser Health Plan to provide hospital and medical services to the Plan's insureds. First, the complaint sought punitive damages from Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, which is a "licensed health care service plan" under California's Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (Health & Saf.
Note:	A procedural statute did not bar punitive damages claims in a suit alleging that Kaiser Foundation Health Plan conspired to deny costly medical services to health plan members.
Citation:	B233759
WCC Citation:	WCC 38572012 CA

Case Name:	Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. WCAB (Brennan)		02/28/1979
Summary:	KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, THOMAS J. BRENNAN et al. , Respondents. OPINION COBEY Acting P. J. , Petitioners Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Southern California Permanente Medical Group (Kaiser) contend that respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) erred in charging part of a fee awarded an injured worker's attorney to Kaiser's recovery on its lien claim for medical services (see Lab. III We find Quinn v. State of California (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 162 [124 Cal. Rptr. 1, 539 P. 2d 761] and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. (1978) 22 Cal. 3d 776 [151 Cal. Rptr. 537, 588 P. 2d 239]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. In California School for the Deaf the petitioner was 'Kaiser Foundation Hospitals/ Permanente Medical Group. '
Note:	Copy of C&R must be served to lien claimant who is to be charged a portion of atty. fees; claimant has right to notice of hearing before any apportionment.
Citation:	91 Cal.App.3d 493, 44 CCC 294
WCC Citation:	WCC 27531979 CA

Case Name:	Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. WCAB (Daly City)		07/25/1985
Summary:	KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CITY OF DALY CITY et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Lucas, J. , expressing the unanimous view of the court. )The injury worsened and on March 6, 1981, Martin was admitted to Kaiser Foundation Hospital (Kaiser) in Redwood City where he was furnished medical services. There is no evidence that either Kaiser or City knew before Kaiser sent this letter that Martin's injury was possibly work related. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp.
Note:	Breach of employer's duty to notify employee of rights to benefits tolls limitations period; duty arises if employer has constructive knowledge of injury.
Citation:	39 Cal.3d 57, 50 CCC 411
WCC Citation:	WCC 4071985 CA

Case Name:	Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. WCAB (Gregory)		12/15/1978
Summary:	KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, ROBERT GREGORY et al. , Respondents. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, GEORGE ALBERT JONES et al. , Respondents. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, SEVER M. LONE et al. , Respondents. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CARL SMITH et al. , Respondents. [87 Cal. App. 3d 343] Petitioner, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and its affiliate, Southern California Permanente Medical Group (Kaiser) admittedly are the kind of provider of medical services referred to in that section.
Note:	WCAB reduction of lien pursuant to C&R is constitutional, applies retroactively; parties to C&R must serve reports, evidence presented to Bd. to claimant.
Citation:	87 Cal.App.3d 336, 43 CCC 1300
WCC Citation:	WCC 25371978 CA

Case Name:	Kaiser Foundation v. WCAB (Yturralde)		08/12/1996
Summary:	Applicant Melody Yturralde worked for Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospital as a registered nurse and lab technician. The parties submitted stipulations in 4/93, and the WCJ issued an award. In the opinion denying defendant's Petition for Writ of Review, the Appellate Court stated: "The Board correctly relied on Smyers v. Workers' Comp. (1984) 157 Cal. App. 3d 36, 42-43 to allow benefits for housekeeping and child care services which are medically necessary and reasonable. You are counseled to consult the full case for an accurate citation.
Note:	Child care may be awarded as reasonable medical per Smyers.
Citation:	61 CCC 876 (Writ Denied)
WCC Citation:	WCC 29551996 CA

Case Name:	Kaiser v. Calif. Electric, Calif. Casualty Exch.		10/28/1998
Summary:	On March 20, 1998, defendant filed a Petition for Removal with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) pursuant to Labor Code section 5310. After reviewing the record, the Board will deny removal, but will return this matter to the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) for further proceedings and decision. It is premature to file either an Application or a petition for reconsideration since no arbitrator's decision has been issued in this case. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Petition for Removal filed April 20, 1998, be, and it hereby is, DENIED. [sic] and that this matter be, and it is hereby, RETURNED to the WCJ for further proceedings and decision consistent with this opinion.
Note:	WCJ has authority to dismiss application if injury covered by alternative resolution process under 3201.5.
Citation:	63 CCC 1391 (Panel)
WCC Citation:	WCC 3931998 CA

Case Name:	Kaiser v. Simpson		05/15/2009
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CYNTHIA KAISER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SEAN DANIEL SIMPSON et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Cynthia Kaiser appeals a judgment after a jury found against her in this action for professional negligence against her former law firm, Simpson & Brenner, LLP, and its attorneys. On September 27, 2002, Kaiser retained Simpson & Brenner to prosecute a third-party liability claim against Palomar. In this appeal, Kaiser contends the trial court abused its discretion and violated its prior in limine ruling by allowing expert King to testify that Simpson & Brenner did not violate the standard of care in failing to seek leave to file a late claim because the initial six-month statute of limitations had expired by the time Kaiser retained Simpson & Brenner and therefore, the case was "dead on arrival. "Kaiser nonetheless points out that King repeatedly testified that her case was "dead on arrival" at Simpson & Brenner's office, and that, by the time she brought her case to Simpson & Brenner, her rights were "set in stone" because of her failure to act diligently.
Note:	[Unpublished] An injured worker waived her right to challenge a San Diego Superior Court's admission of expert testimony in her legal malpractice action by failing to object to the admission of such testimony during the trial process.
Citation:	D053348
WCC Citation:	WCC 35242009 CA

Case Name:	Kamel v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation		03/29/2011
Summary:	KAMEL v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION LOUIS KAMEL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Defendant and Respondent. We examine the documents presented in the trial court and independently determine their effect as a matter of law. The timely filing of an administrative complaint is a prerequisite to the bringing of a civil action for damages under the FEHA. The second amended complaint names only the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) as defendant. All four were employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Prison Health Care Services in Sacramento.
Note:	A trial court must decide whether the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation unlawfully revoked a psychiatrist's job offer in retaliation for prior complaints about discrimination.
Citation:	F059186
WCC Citation:	WCC 37392011 CA

Case Name:	Kamel vs. West Cliff Medical		12/24/2001
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA WAHBY KAMEL Applicant, vs. WEST CLIFF MEDICAL; SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. BACKGROUND Applicant, while employed as a medical technologist on November 10, 1998, sustained industrial injury to his back, left hip and lower extremity. In Findings and Award issued on February 2, 2000, it was determined, among other things, that this injury caused permanent disability of 48 percent. Following defendant's failure to appear at the May 21, 2001 mandatory settlement conference, this matter was set for trial on June ,2001. The question of delay and the reasonableness of the cause therefor shall be determined by the appeals board in accordance with the facts.
Note:	In a 5814 penalty, applicant must first establish delay or refusal in the payment of compensation and then the defendant
Citation:	66 CCC ___ (En Banc)
WCC Citation:	WCC 29032001 CA